The U.S. military camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has found its way to the headlines once again. For a little over a week now, the Senate has been considering measures that would dictate the future of the hundreds of "enemy combatants" being held, discussing everything from what interrogation tactics are permissible to what types of trials, if any, these men will have. Missing from all proposed legislation, however, is the ability of detainees to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus - the rights of the accused to seek a fair trial through the courts - is ironically the only option many detainees still have. This partial suspension of habeas corpus would work a grave injustice on the Guantanamo detainees, and it is an even more dramatic departure from our legal traditions.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is expected to introduce an amendment that would preserve the right of those labeled "enemy combatants" to challenge their detention in a court of law and be represented by a lawyer. If his amendment is not adopted, the writ of habeas corpus would be suspended in the United States for the first time since the Civil War more than a century ago - a move often regarded as a mistake driven by fear and racism.

For up to four and a half years, hundreds of men ranging in age from 15 to 90 have been held at the Guantanamo Bay military camp. Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has called them the "worst of the worst," the government has only managed to bring charges against 10 of them so far. While more may eventually be charged, it seems clear that the vast majority will never come before the military tribunals whose procedures Congress is currently debating. Ironically, they will not appear before a tribunal because there isn't enough evidence against them to support charges.

These detainees are allowed an even less comprehensive review of their detention than the detainees who are formally charged. As revealed in transcripts from military review proceedings made public through Freedom of Information Act litigation, the "hearings" these detainees receive consist, for the most part, of a statement by the detainee - who hasn't been told what he's charged with - followed by some questions from the hearing panel about the unclassified portion of the government's suspicions. The detainee is unable to present any evidence in his defense other than his own testimony. He is presumed guilty. Habeas corpus is the only meaningful recourse for the hundreds of detainees who have not been and will not be brought before military tribunals.

Research suggests some of these detainees are innocent - they may never have opposed the United States or our allies. The government has repeatedly asserted that these men were captured "on the battlefield," yet following review of transcripts of the proceedings, researchers at the National Journal found that nearly half of those being held were not participating in any violent activity during their capture. Faculty and students at Seton Hall Law School came to similar conclusions in their study "A Report on Guantanamo Detainees." Completed earlier this year, the report investigated 517 prisoners being held at the time, finding that only 8 percent "were characterized (by the military) as al-Qaida fighters" and only 5 percent "were captured by United States forces."

Experts have concluded that the extravagant bounty money often offered by the U.S. government is to blame for the capture of innocents. Considering the extreme poverty and the violent factionalism in the majority of countries represented at the prison, it is no wonder a large sum of money provided the incentive. The opportunity to make a rival disappear and to do so anonymously is also not a bad perk.

Habeas corpus was developed centuries ago to address circumstances like these. It is one of our most basic rights - the safety net when all else fails. Suspending it, even with respect to foreigners accused of terrorism, is a major curtailment of our constitutional freedoms. It is in situations like Guantanamo where habeas corpus and other fundamental rights are put to the test. Giving up these most basic protections is an easy answer when a threat surfaces, but doing so leads us down a dangerous path we have already traveled too far along.

Dick is an LSA junior.